[jguthrie]

I was wondering what about the film itself turned everyone on to it?  For me, first and foremost, I'm a documentary filmmaker.  So it was really Friedkin's doc style that hooked me.  I mean, to me, the film WAS real.  Second was absolutely Miller's performance.  I wish he was still alive and making films.  One of the best actors ever.  Thirdly I guess is my faith.  The film is absolutely about the mystery of faith and it really makes you think.  Probably one of the most cerebral horror films ever.  And although Friedkin doesn't consider the film a horror film, it sure as heck scared me the first time I saw it.  It was just shattering to the nerves.

[granville1]

The novel first turned me on to it, then I heard it was going to be filmed, and with so many others I thought, How the hell are they gonna shoot this, especially the crucifix scene?

I was grabbed from the first frames. The sun over Iraq, the dig, Von Sydow's uncanny performance as he meets with premonitions, the archetypal, mythic setting.

Then the cold, documentary feel as the screen shows the Georgetown bridge. The “squirrels in the attic”, the homelife of a famous movie star, visiting her on the set, Karras laughing at Denning's obscene language. By that early time in the film, i was hooked and couldn't take my eyes and ears off its grand narrative and fascinating characters. Friedkin/Blatty “had” me. The effect was somewhat like the Dawn of Man sequences in 2001 and the very first segment of The Greatest Story Ever Told … being slowly but surely pulled into the story by an artistic use of understatement and judicious use of silence(s) … almost like hypnotic induction. Being made to strain a bit to be able to catch everything.

The absolutely realistic dialogue between Chris and Dr. Klein, especially in the office visit where Klein describes Regan's obscene vocabulary. The two actors played perfectly off each other, and the scene itself contributed its part to the rising sense of dread.

Dick Smith's makeup.

Karras/Miller, as you mentioned.

One of the very few films where priests are portrayed authentically, as real people who smoke cigarettes, feel guilty and “lost” in that particular modern way (Karras counseling the young priest, “There isn't a day I don't feel like a fraud. I've talked to them all, doctors, lawyers …”). The Exorcist's clergy are the real deal. No creepy, poached-eyed freaks like the priest in the first Omen movie, not overly pious, but intelligent, witty, worthy, willing to lend a hand. Just like the priests I knew from my Catholic upbringing.

I could go on and on, but these are my basic impressions.

[jguthrie]

I love the way you describe the priests.  Just like ordinary people.  My sentiments exactly.  It really makes you feel for them.  And that last shot of Dyer looking down the steps looking like he wants to cry…that hooked me.

[granville1]

Yeah, Dyer/O'Malley was great. In the novel he's a much shorter man with spectacles – sort of “elfish” – but O'Malley played him perfectly even without the physical attributes. He'd never had a screen role before, and iirc, his only acting experience was in college and in teaching high school dramatics. Too bad Friedkin thought he had to punch the priest in the face to get a “just-so” performance out of him at the bottom of the Hitchcock Steps. Whatever – his grief was fully believable, just as it was in the top-of-the-stairs scene you mention.

Even the other Jesuit, who played “Tom” in the tavern, to whom Karras tells his troubles and of whom Karras asks for a reassignment, played it exactly “straight”. I would have guessed he, too, was not an actor, but a priest.

Even the NON-clergy who played clergy were the real deal, e.g., the shocked little deacon bringing flowers to the chapel only to discover the desecrated chapel, the guy who played the bishop in two scenes (the second scene featuring “Tom” again).

Great stuff 🙂

[ReganMacNeilfan]

The holiday Halloween, though it was after that I saw the directors cut. Then loved it.

[Author]

Posts